2024 (11) TMI 261 - HC - GST

Seeking grant of regular bail - petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the main accused have not been impleaded - petitioner has undergone actual custody of 11 months and 26 days and there is one another case registered against him, in which he is on bail - offences u/s 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 132 CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - Admittedly, the charges were framed on 29.09.2023 and out of total 12 prosecution witness, three prosecution witnesses have been examined till date and one witness has given up. Further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose and will be violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India including the right to speedy trial, and is against the principle Bail is a rule, jail is an exception as elucidated in the judgment of Apex Court in DATARAM SINGH VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR. 2018 (2) TMI 410 - SUPREME COURT . Deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial is not consistent with Article 21. While deprivation of personal liberty for some period may not be avoidable, period of deprivation pending trial/appeal cannot be unduly long. The Apex Court in ABDUL REHMAN ANTULAY VERSUS R.S. NAYAK 1991 (12) TMI 274 - SUPREME COURT observed that Right to Speedy Trial flowing from Article 21 encompasses all the stages, namely the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial. The veracity of the allegations leveled against the petitioner shall be established during the course of the trial. Admittedly, the charges have been framed and only three prosecution witness have been examined till date. Therefore, this Court is of the view that further incarceration of the petitioner would not serve any purpose. Without commenting anything on the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice the trial, the present petition is allowed and order is made absolute. The petitioner shall abide by the conditions imposed - bail application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Grant of regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case involving FIR under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 132 CGST Act, 2017.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner sought regular bail in a case where FIR was registered based on a complaint by an Excise & Taxation Officer. The complaint alleged fraud by the petitioner's firm in connivance with suppliers, involving misrepresentation of business premises, fake documents, and fraudulent passing of input credit. The petitioner claimed false implication and cited previous custody and bail in another case.

2. The petitioner's counsel argued against further detention, emphasizing the right to speedy trial and citing relevant judgments. The State counsel opposed, mentioning charges framed, witnesses examined, and the seriousness of the allegations.

3. The court considered the right to speedy trial under Article 21, highlighting the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception. Referring to previous judgments, it emphasized the importance of timely trial stages from investigation to retrial.

4. Noting the charges framed and limited witness examination, the court found continued incarceration unnecessary. It stressed that the trial would determine the allegations' veracity and allowed the bail petition without prejudging the case.

5. The court imposed conditions on the petitioner, including non-tampering with evidence, not pressurizing witnesses, appearing in court, refraining from similar offenses, and avoiding inducements or threats to withhold information.

6. The court clarified that the bail order did not reflect a final opinion on the case's merits and urged the trial court to proceed independently. It warned of bail cancellation upon breaching the imposed conditions, ensuring compliance and fair trial proceedings.

7. The judgment balanced the petitioner's right to bail with the need for a speedy trial, highlighting the constitutional protection of personal liberty and the importance of procedural fairness in criminal proceedings.